Tuesday, June 26, 2012

"PRIVATE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS - REMEMBER THATS WHAT THEY ARE - STOP CALLING THEM GOVERNMENT"

"PRIVATE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS - REMEMBER THATS WHAT THEY ARE - STOP CALLING THEM GOVERNMENT"


(in Comments)

apple June 23, 2012
From Team Law
Corporate United States
The Columbia Organic Act of 1871

YouTube (post 6/23/12 ~13 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-gmVZgjcUY

Text Version (post in 2002)
Some Historical Facts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/813840/posts

The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations, remember that is what they are and stop calling them government."
_____________________________________________________________________
(from above comment)
Gods of Money Act of 1871
Gods of Money Act of 1871 The Columbia Organic Act of 1871 READ Original Act Here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&...
Historical Facts;
1st: In 1863, Lincoln instituted martial law. He ordered that the states (people) either conscribe troops and provide money in support of the North or be recognized as an enemy of the nation. This martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today - what it means is that the President has dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by the government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders.

2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a private corporation (hereinafter "Corp. U.S.") owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.

3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution's 13th Amendment. The national constitution's 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are respectively numbered 14th, 15th and 16th amendments in their constitution.

4th: The corporation began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.

5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank".

Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system-again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.

6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. passes and adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. It must be noted that this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our 14th, 15th and 16th amendments, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that it did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.

From: http://www.teamlaw.org/

trustee@teamlaw.org

Infowars.com video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZGMWJUc4I&feature=plcp
F William Engdahl's Website

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/

Read All at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/813840/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com

Defence of German banks a key factor


 


GREEK DEFICIT: How Berlin encouraged Papandreou to big-up the 2009 Greek deficit;

Defence of German banks a key factor

Schäuble and Merkel....implicated in an incredible scam

How Venizelos fired ELSTAT moles to cover up the truth

Spanish European Commissioner backs story of international fraud

The Western MSM have never questioned the 'received truth' that Athens understated its liability and obligations for several years following the launch of the euro. But few if any outside observers know the truth behind what happened when Papandreou took over the Premiership in Greece....and for Machiavellian reasons, the debt was suddenly overstated.

In October 2009, George Papandreou stepped into what one Athens source has called 'the shitfilled shoes of Kostas Karamanlis', and discovered that the two previous administrations had lied about both the size of the National Debt, and the ongoing level of government spending. In Greece, the folks you go to see to find out this kind of stuff hang out in an organisation called ELSTAT - the Hellenic Statistical Authority.
What happened in the weeks following was quite bizarre - and pretty fully documented. Somewhat panicked by the degree of mendacity he'd discovered, Papandreou confided to key Cabinet cronies that the real fiscal situation involved not balanced books, but a 7.8% deficit...well beyond the limits allowed by Brussels  - although Brussels had, from Day One, been something of a paper tiger when it came to enforcing the currency rules. An insider from that time comments:
"Papandreou thought there was a serious chance he'd be thrown out of the eurozone. Unbelievable I know, but he did. But then things went rapidly from bad to awful. He really did have no idea what was coming."
Rather like an Olympics Budget, the deficit figure kept rising  with each week, as the new government opened more and more worm-cans. First ELSTAT said 7.8%, then 9.8%, then it went to 11%, before finally settling at 13.6%. Only then - some time shortly before Christmas 2009 - did Papandreou talk to Brussels, Paris and Berlin about the possible need for a bailout.
In fact, through her Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, Angela Merkel already know about the Greek deficit lies.  Schäuble became Finance Minister shortly after Papandreou came to power. Although Angela Merkel had shafted the wheelchair-bound assassin's victim on at least two previous occasions, she wanted him now for three reasons: first, as Minister of the Interior, he had an excellent head for secrecy and covert operations. Second, he was hugely in favour of EU political union. And third, he didn't have the scruples of his SPD predecessor, Peer Steinbrück. A lack of scruple was going to be crucial: for Merkel also knew that German banks were heavily exposed to the Athens deception.
Thus, if the eurozone members didn't put their hands in thir pockets bigtime, Germany could be facing a severe financial crisis. (Sarkozy, says a Parisian diplomatic source, was even more terrified, in that all his exposed banks were completely guaranteed by the State).
Somewhere in the midst of these talks, Berlin requested a smaller meeting with the Greeks. At this meeting, three sources (two Greek and one German) allege, the small German delegation made an astonishing observation: the situation would "have to look more desperate" in order to justify a bailout to the other eurozone members. That is to say, only widespread fear of the entire eurozone being damaged would get the member States to pile in with bailout monies.
What Berlin was really worried about, of course, was that the Franco-German banking system might collapse if Greece wasn't saved. And at that stage, little or nothing had been done to make the sector better able to withstand a derivatives wave.
The European Commission had in fact already issued a warning in July 2009 that Greece's deficit was likely to reach 10% of GDP - if no counter-measures were taken to curb public spending - and that Commissioners regarded the official 6% GDP forecast as "over-optimistic”. But, Berlin argued, only something, say, 50% or more above that potential second figure would frighten eurozoners enough to get them to part with their cash.
Without assuming much, one has to observe that this plan does have Schäuble written all over it. And sure enough, in due course (November 2010) the eurozone learned that the Greek deficit was 'currently running at 15.8%'. George Papandreou had meanwhile announced his first austerity package in January 2010, and in May of that year EU leaders unveiled a €110bn bailout with money from the European Union (EU), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)....the so-called Troika. So clearly, the crisis was real enough....and the bailout fully justified. It seemed.
Fast forward now to 2011. Enter from left field former Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) board member Zoi Georganta (pictured) who caused a sensation by alleging that the declared deficit for 2009 had been been massaged upwards in November 2010 by her boss Andreas Georgiou.
And lest any nasty male chauvinists out there want to dismiss Zoi Georganta as a lone madwoman, I should point out that six Elstat board members had been dismissed in June 2011 after clashing with Elstat chairman Georgiou. They too had spotted the Tippex liberally applied to the 'revised' data.
Says one Athenian source, "She was trying to tell everyone forever that she knew Pasok purposely sabotaged Greece at Germany's request, to ensure our cooperation". Zoi was off the money with her motive guesswork, but she was in no doubt that the figures had been got at and inflated. Investigators visited her, after which everything died down. It was said that she had changed her statement.
But now comes our old friend Evangelo Venizelos - author of the legislation to grant legal indemnity to all Greek Ministers: and in September, he orders the entire ELSTAT board (including Georganta) to resign....except the key villain, Andreas Georgiou. Just fancy that. And when Evangelo gets involved in the mire, you know a sh*tload of mire is being covered over with carefully planted (and watered) roses.
But given that Ms Georganta was not the only whistleblower at ELSTAT, the rumour persisted...albeit (as usual) without any awareness of this spreading scandal in the Western MSM.  It persisted, in fact, throughout the eurozone. And in March this year, Zoi found an unlikely ally.
Joachin Almunia Amann is a former left-wing Spanish politician, and now a prominent European Commissioner. Currently responsible for Competition, in February 2010 - a crucial moment in the debt-inflation plot - he was the European Comissioner for Economic & Monetary affairs...the role now owned by Olli Rehn. Amann was thus in an unparalleled position to watch Greco-EU-German affairs unfold between the austerity announcement and then bailout agreement of 2010.
In a letter to the parliamentary committee of inquiry concerning allegations of deliberate deficit inflation of March 2012, Amman crucially stated that, 'there was no obligation on each national statistical authority in the EU to follow Eurostat's ESA 95 code on the inclusion of public utility accounts in the deficit'. But for some reason - suddenly - ELSTAT had decided to add it into the pot. In remarking upon this, Joachin defended the six resignees from 2011. (And thus, by implication, Zoi Georganta as well).
Highly significantly, Amann also observed that had the 2009 warnings from his Commission been been enacted even as late as Papandreou's arrival, 'the measures would have succeeded if they had been properly and promptly implemented without any need for a bailout'.
So it was that last Monday (June 25th 2012) Zoi appeared before the deficit Enquiry in Parliament. Having been the unhappy subject of quite a bit of interior ministry 'attention' over the last year, Ms Georganta decided to be more circumspect. She dumped on 2009 finance minister Giorgos Papaconstantinou, observing, “I have investigated the matter and found that he does not have any great experience with statistics, with economic issues. In my view, you cannot appoint such an inexperienced minister at such a crucial time.” Unless you don't want any trouble, in which case you do. But she stuck to her guns about the debt being inflated, telling the Enquiry that the deficit for 2009 should have been 12.5% of GDP - and could have easily been brought to below 10 percent with immediate measures.
Crucially, Georganta, a professor of econometrics, confirmed to Greek media representatives that ELSTAT intentionally, and after being pressured by Eurostat (the EU's tame body), inflated the 2009 revised deficit from roughly 12-13% to 15.8% using "non-scientific methods in order to justify the adoption of more and tougher fiscal measures in Greece."
What conclusions should we draw?
Three years ago, I wouldn't have touched a story like this with a bargepole. But since studying both the EU and the Greek tragedy in more detail in recent times, I've realised that a well-documented and sourced account, without collusion and based on trusted informants and mainstream Greek media reports, is more likely to be true than invention. Of course, a great many players on the geopolitical and european stages have agendas, axes to grind, and scores to settle. But when something fits, makes sense, and is in line with other discoveries made along the way....well, all I can say is that absolutely nothing surprises me any more.
So the conclusion I draw is that we have here opportunity, motive, testimony, media reports, personal 'form' and a jigsaw piece that fits very well with others upon which The Slog has reported over the last two years. In order to illustrate that assertion, let me introduce as a quartet four people I believe to have been pivotal in recent-history world affairs: Tim Geithner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Angela Merkel, and George Papandreou.
I will start by relaying this email content received from a heavyweight player in Greek affairs and a student of geopolitics. I'm sure he wouldn't mind the tiny changes I've made here and there to improve his English grammar. He observes:
'One very important person, I believe, is Strauss-Kahn. His connection with Papandreou is well known, and verified by his interview where he admitted that he had discussions with Papandreou a lot before the Greek door opening to the IMF [in 2010]. The point here is not the connection of S-K with Papandreou, but the timing of the dalliance which he was accused. I believe that S-K was at that point an ally of Merkel.
'By the end of 2009, the international economic balance seemed to have permanently changed, and a new scene brought to being in which Europe was in a better position than the U.S. At the hub of the wheel there is Germany, asserting the role of economic power model, which could assure international monetary and financial stability.
'The dramatic announcement by the Greek government of the imminent danger of bankruptcy [January 2010] opened the bag of Aeolus, revealing the weak and until then, unseen side of the euro. The Director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Minister of Commerce of France in the critical years of the early 90s when they entered the foundation for the creation of the euro, and Finance Minister of Germany, Schäuble, interior minister of Germany during secret agreements of the same period,  realized that the U.S.would not let the window of opportunity that had opened be wasted - and that Greece would become the bridge for an attack on the Eurozone.'
The source is not a million miles away from where I am on this one. That is, DSK was taken out of the game for geopolitical reasons, and replaced with "our gal" (as Geithner calls her) Christine Lagarde. You can read several pieces related to this shift in my dedicated page here, The Strauss-Kahn Waltz. Left without an ally in establishing the hegemony of Europe at America's expense, both Merkel and Schäuble now became deeply (and rightly) suspicious of the Geithner 'amputation plot' hatched in New York between late 2011 and early 2012 by a combo of Wall Street, Pentagon and Fed Treasury appointees. You can read more on this at US Bankers given a timetable for Greek Default  and also at  Greek default planners falling out over firewall.
The Americans hoped to gain a firewall, military bases and access to precious raw materials by befriending a post-euro Greece. That ambition still remains, but what the story unveiled above shows is that Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schäuble are more than worthy opponents in the murky world of geopolitical jockeying.

I would like to thank all the American, French, German, British, Canadian and Greek sources who contributed so generously to helping my feeble brain understand at least some of the above events and allegations. I would also like to offer special thanks to one credit dealer and two journalists, without whose refereeing skills it would've remained a mystifying case of underwater rugby without the ball.



Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin: Fighting In Our Father’s Footsteps

This article is about Lt. Col. Terry Lakin and his refusal to follow unlawful orders.  As a result, he was sentenced to prison.  Reading the rationale behind his sentence for his refusal to follow orders from an unlawful, pseudo commander-in-chief makes one wonder about US troops who might be engaged as part of an International Military "Police" Force under martial law.  Would they have the courage and integrity shown by Lakin, or would they mindlessly and conveniently shoot or imprison their fellow Americans?  With a similar mindset as Phillip Cave's, there would be little hope for the American people.

from politicalvelcraft.org

Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin: Fighting In Our Father’s Footsteps ~ Freeing America From The Banking Cabal’s Clutches!


Socrates famously said that an unexamined life is not worth living. However that may be, there’s new proof everyday that a critically unexamined so-called news report is not worth reading.


A case in point: A slyly derogatory article at foxnews.com purporting to discuss the prospects of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin‘s effort to obtain, by means of a military trial, evidence that bears on the question of Barack Obama’s eligibility for the office of President of the United States.
The article sports a headline that applies to Lt. Col Lakin the inaccurate epithet “birther” invented by Obama faction propagandists to distract from the profound question of Constitutional authority that is really at stake. It goes on to suggest that Lt. Col. Lakin made some kind of legal procedural error (“has chosen the wrong venue”) by declining to obey doubtfully lawful orders issued in the name of the President of the United States. To substantiate this assertion the story quotes from “Phillip D. Cave, a Washington attorney and director of the National Institute of Military justice.” “Cave said the validity of Lakin’s orders, under military law, does not depend on the president but on the chain of command. He will be convicted and is in jeopardy of dismissal.”
Dr. (Maj.) Terry Lakin, the flight surgeon for 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, examines the partially amputated finger of an Afghan man who assists in collecting unexploded ordnance at Kandahar Airfield. Lakin was selected as the Army Medical Department’s Flight Surgeon of the Year for 2004.
Cave speaks as if it is acceptable, under the Constitution of the United States, to distinguish the authority of the “chain of command” from that of the President of the United States. If this distinction is accurate, then there must be a Constitutional source other than the President for the authority flowing through the alternative military chain of command. But the U.S. military is an instrument of the U.S. government’s executive power. The Constitution vests the whole of that power in the President of the United States. To avoid all possibility of misunderstanding, it explicitly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of the all the Armed Forces of the United States. To be Constitutional, therefore, any and all authority flowing through the chain of command must originate in the President, and any and all orders issued to officers in that chain of Command must ultimately depend upon and exercise the President’s Constitutional power.
The words which commission all U.S. military officers reflect this fact.
The President of the United States of America

To all who shall see these presents, greeting:

Know Ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities of ………………, I do appoint ["him" or "her"] a ["Second Lieutenant" or "Ensign'] in the [name of service] to rank as such from the …. day of …….. …… This Officer will therefore carefully and diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging.

And I do strictly charge and require those Officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. And this Officer is to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

This commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America for the time being, under the provisions of those Public Laws relating to Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States of America and the component thereof in which this appointment is made.

Done at the City of Washington, this …. day of …….. in the year of our Lord ……………. and of the Independence of the United States of America the ……….

By the President:

Whatever his claims to expertise in military law, when Mr. Cave relies on the concept of a military chain of command independent of the President he is entirely at odds with the provisions of the Constitution. In particular, he contradicts the Constitution’s subordination of all military authority to civilian control, embodied in and exercised through the President. Any military tribunal that adopted Mr. Cave’s view of the chain of command would assert the existence within the military of a source of authority not subordinate to the President, and not part of the executive power of the U.S. government, which the Constitution vests exclusively in the person of the President. Such an assertion would be, on its face, unlawful, unconstitutional and extremely dangerous to the stability of the United States government.
George Washington Fighting The British Banking Cabal’s Military At Valley Forge!
Unlike the military in most other parts of the world, the U.S. military has a uniform and honorable tradition of unquestionable submission to the authority of the U.S. Constitution and its provision for the civilian control of the military. Military officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and pursuant to that oath they “observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.”

Herein lies the nub of Lt. Col Lakin’s dilemma, and that of every other commissioned officer now serving in the U.S. military. If a Superior Officer issues a command relying on the authority of an individual claiming to be President of the United States, but not in fact Constitutionally eligible for the office, is obedience to that questionably lawful order consistent with the sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made pursuant thereto?
Obama Captured
There is no question that doubt exists as to the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama for the Office of President. Had there been any authoritative pronouncement on the subject from an impartial and constitutionally empowered element of the U.S. government (the Supreme Court or the Congress) the officers of the military would be obliged to defer to that authoritative and constitutionally authorized judgment. But the Congress has refused to address the subject, and the Supreme Court of the United States has evaded the issue.
Their dereliction leaves the doubt constitutionally unresolved, so that every military officer, and indeed every citizen of the United States, can have no certainty as to the Constitutionality of any action performed by Barack Obama when he claims to wield the executive power of the U.S. government. Indeed, if Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President, the Constitution plainly states that the executive power passes to the Vice-President.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution established a unitary executive precisely in order to avoid the potentially self-destructive spectacle of the U.S. government as a double-headed monstrosity whose doubtful assertions of authority on one side or the other could force elements of the Armed Forces of the United States to base their discipline and obedience on personal loyalties and dependencies, rather than on their duty to the people of the United States, whose more permanent will the U.S. Constitution embodies.
Unless the people of the United States are willing to allow their self-government to be usurped by a regime dependent on the choice of military Praetorian guards (like that of the ancient Roman Empire), the present situation is intolerable. The Fox online news article leaves hanging the defamatory suggestion that Lt. Col. Lakin’s action is personal “grandstanding.” This is a callous and deeply disrespectful lie. With the frank and single minded integrity a free people should expect from its military officers he simply seeks a constitutionally authoritative resolution of an issue that leaves doubt where doubt may be fatal to the integrity of his oath bound conscience, as well as the democratic, civilian form of republican government established by the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Col. Lakin is not the one who has mistaken his actions. Indeed, he shows the intelligence, courage and common sense thus far sorely lacking among the civilian authorities for whose Constitutional position he shows greater respect than they themselves have so far demonstrated. I have no doubt that he hopes, as we should all pray, that his case will advance until it puts before these so far shamefully derelict authorities a conscientiously inescapable opportunity to stop evading their duty, and to heed, as Lt. Col. Lakin has, the clearly stated requirements of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
Roman Catholic Guy Fawkes

Guy Fawkes

Related articles

Credit & Debit CARD Warning-Warning-Warning

Subject: Credit & Debit CARD Warning-Warning-Warning


This was seen on TV. So we should all be aware of the situation!!!


Warning-Warning-Warning


This video is well worth watching. 




More Odd Disappearances

More Odd Disappearances

Date:
06-24-12
Host:
George Knapp
Guests:
George Knapp was joined by David Paulides, a former lawman turned investigative journalist, for an extended update on his captivating research into mysterious vanishings from our national parks and forests. He noted that his previous Coast appearance in March generated an overwhelming amount of feedback, including a variety of theories on the disappearances as well as new cases. Regarding the scope of his investigation, Paulides revealed that he has now collected over 450 cases of these baffling events at national parks. Additionally, he recently spoke at a convention of search and rescue professionals where, following his presentation, several attendees noted their own experiences with these vanishings but had not realized this was such a widespread phenomenon.
Over the course of the evening, Paulides detailed a number of cases as well as trends surrounding these disappearances that he has uncovered via his research. One recurring element, seen when a victim is found, is that they have "scratches on their bodies from head to toe" as if they ran wildly into the brush. Another trend, Paulides said, was that many of the people who disappear were last seen wearing brightly colored clothes. He also observed that search parties are frequently hampered by lengthy storms which occur immediately following the disappearance. "It's so far beyond a mere coincidence, it's unreal," marveled Paulides, who cited one case where it rained for the entire three week period while search teams looked for a missing boy.
Despite the vast number of vanishing cases he has found, Paulides conceded that the reason for the disappearances remains a mystery. That said, he expressed considerable suspicion over the government's perceived lack of interest in these events. "There's got to be some type of cover up on this at the federal level," he contended, "because there's no reason in the rational world why the parks service wouldn't be tracking people who disappear inside their system." To that end, he cited two separate cases where a person went missing and teams of Green Berets were tasked with independently searching the area "as though they were on their own private mission that no one understood."
Website(s):

Panic in the New World Order

Panic in the New World Order

Recently by Gary North: Tariffs as Welfare State Economics
 
  
For the first time in my career, I see the international establishment, sometimes called the New World Order, facing a crisis so large that its very survival is at stake. For the first time, these people are scared.
There are not many of them. In his book, Superclass, author David Rothkopf estimates that there are only about 6000 people at the top of the pyramid of world power and influence. They are mostly males, and at least a third of them have attended America's most prestigious universities. Most of the others have attended comparable universities in Europe.
The crisis in Europe is clearly beyond anything that this generation of establishment leaders has ever seen. The last time that anything like this faced the European establishment, it led to World War II.
During the entire postwar period, the United States has been the dominant force in the West. The United States government through the Marshall Plan wrote the checks to keep the European governments afloat, and it funded most of NATO, the mutual defense system that was set up to constrain the expansion of the Soviet Union.
The United States is no longer in a position to bail out anybody. It is running a massive trade deficit, and is running a massive federal deficit. Europe realizes now that, from an economic standpoint, it is on its own. If there are solutions to the European economic crisis, these solutions are going to have to be generated inside the eurozone.
BANKS AT RISK
Today, the entire banking system of Europe is at risk. The banks are highly leveraged, and they have made enormous investments at low-interest rates in bonds issued by governments that are technically insolvent. There is no possibility that any of these bonds will ever be repaid. They were never designed to be repaid. They were designed to keep the taxpayers of all European countries in permanent bondage to the banking system.
Now, in a complete reversal of fortune, the banks are increasingly dependent on the governments. The governments are now the lenders of next-to-last resort to the commercial banks. The central bank, of course, is the lender of last resort. But today, the European Central Bank has moved into neutral. It does not want to take action to bail out Greece, Spain, or Italy.
The PIIGS governments that wrote the IOUs to the banks in northern Europe are technically insolvent. When Greece defaults, which it will, there will be enormous losses sustained by some northern European banks. When Spain defaults, which it will, these losses will get far worse. When Italy defaults, which it will, the entire banking system of Europe will be busted.
The only things that can save European banking system today are the European Central Bank, which has the power to create money out of nothing, and the taxpayers of Germany, whose national leaders are relentless in their desire to expand the power of the eurozone over all of Europe. These politicians are willing to write IOUs on behalf of German taxpayers in order to extend this consolidation.
A DAISY CHAIN OF DEBT
The problem is, the Northern European governments do not have any money to serve as lenders to Greece, Spain, or Italy. They are borrowing money at rates not seen before in peacetime Europe. These governments are expected to intervene and lend money to the Greek government. But every northern European government is now faced with the additional responsibility of being the lender of next-to-last resort to the large commercial banks inside its own borders.
Who is going to lend northern European governments enough money to bail out southern European governments? Which lenders think this is a good idea today? At today's rate of interest, not that many. That is why interest rates are going to rise. But when long-term interest rates rise, that will lower the present market value of all of the bonds in the portfolios of the lenders.
So, on the one hand, investors have to pony up the money to lend to the governments, and the governments need the money to recapitalize the banks in their own borders. This leads to the next problem: in order for the lenders to lend money to a government, they have to write checks on their bank accounts. What happens if their banks should go under? Who will lend money to the governments?
In this daisy chain of fiat money, credit, and debt, the European Central Bank is the lender of last resort. It is the lender of last resort because it has the legal authority to create money out of nothing. It can buy IOUs issued by governments, and it can lend money to banks, so that the banks can buy the IOUs of governments.
DAYS OF RECKONING
The entire political system that we know as the European Union is dependent upon a system of fractional reserve banking which has overextended itself, and now faces a day of reckoning. Actually, it faces two days of reckoning.
First, there is a day of reckoning in the PIIGS countries, when depositors withdraw funds. The second day of reckoning is going to be imposed by the insolvent governments who have been borrowing hundreds of billions of euros from the banks.
The arrival of a bank run threatens the ability of the Greek government to borrow money from anybody. The Greek government is dependent upon the Greek banking system to collect taxes. If the Greek banking system goes belly-up, the Greek government goes belly-up.
In this system, only the European Central Bank has the authority to bail out the system. Every other potential source of euros is dependent on the solvency of the European banking system. But that is exactly what is at risk today.
This is why all fractional reserve banking must ultimately rest on the monopoly granted by government to a central bank. The central bank, above all, is the guarantor of the solvency of the largest banks. The central bank is the economic agent of the owners of the largest commercial banks. These owners are now facing bankruptcy. They hold shares in multinational banks whose lending officers had no understanding of basic economics. They wrote checks to the PIIGS.
In this scenario, the only way to save the system is to risk destroying it. The only way to save the euro is to risk destroying it. This is because there are only two ways to save the largest commercial banks. The first way is by hyperinflation. This will enable the banks to keep their doors open, but the borrowers will be able to pay off their loans by selling a handful of hard assets, which will raise enough money to pay off the loans with worthless euros.
The second way to save the banks, which is what the European Central Bank is attempting to do, is to avoid hyperinflation, and to inflate the money supply only to the degree that the largest banks can be bailed out by making low-interest loans available to them. They in turn must lend out the money, if they can find solvent borrowers, and if those borrowers are willing to borrow.
If the European Central Bank adopts the second approach, this is going to lead to a depression. The bank has inflated. The commercial banks have lent money to insolvent governments. These governments are going to default if there is a recession, but by refusing to expand the money supply, the European Central Bank will produce a recession. The boom that it fostered in the Greenspan years has blown up on European banks, in the same way that the boom in the United States has blown up on America's banks.
There is no equivalent of the FDIC in the European banking system. There is no single government that has the assets or the legal authority to lend to any and all of the other governments. There is no common fiscal system, which means that all the governments can run massive deficits. This means that the governments are in constant competition with each other to borrow enough money to fund their deficits.
So, the system is stretched to the limits. The few remaining lenders with capital who have enough money in their banks to write checks to insolvent governments are now refusing to write the checks. This is why Spain is paying over 7% to get lenders to fork over their money. Lenders who do this are going to wind up like the saps who loaned money to the Greek government prior to 2010. They are going to see the value of their investments collapse as interest rates go to double digits in Spain, which they are going to do unless the European Central Bank intervenes and makes fiat money loans to Spain's government.
WEEKEND SUMMITS
There is now at least one monthly emergency weekend meeting of the political authorities, accompanied by their bureaucrats from the ministries of finance. They come together on a Saturday to talk about how they can save the system. They issue a press release on Sunday. The press release is always short on specifics. Within a month, the crisis has escalated again, and there is another weekend summit meeting.
Every time there is a summit meeting, the investing public that has sufficient money to invest waits with bated breath to see if there is some solution offered on Sunday afternoon. There never is a solution offered, so the stock market drops for the first day or two after the meeting.
It is clear by now to everybody that there is no solution forthcoming. There is no agreement politically, especially between Germany and France, as to who is going to write the checks to bail out the next PIIGS government to hit the brick wall.
I can remember almost 40 years ago listening to a speech by a young hotshot economist at Yale, who informed us that there would be a new currency system established in Europe by the year 2000. This was an accurate forecast. It was established in 1999. The hotshot later moved to Harvard. He has generally disappeared from public view. But it was clear from his enthusiastic speech that he was convinced that this new currency system would create a completely new economic order in Europe. Boy, was he right!
The new economic order in Europe is now disintegrating. The establishment politicians, bureaucrats, and spokesmen are looking in horror as the system which their predecessors designed to work permanently is disintegrating. Not to put too fine a point to it, but this is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's promise about the thousand-year Reich. It lasted 13 years. This year, the euro had its 13th birthday. So far, it has not had a happy birthday.
NO FIREWALL
The leaders of the European establishment have never had to deal with any crisis on a scale like this one. They keep talking of the need for firewalls. Until they have firewalls, nobody is willing to yell "Fire!" Yet the fire is now raging.
What kind of firewall can be created that keeps a default by one government from becoming a default by another government? What firewall is there for a large multinational bank that has just lost half of the value of the bonds that it purchased at a rate of 3%, now that the interest rate is 7%? Every time the interest rate doubles, the market value of the bonds decreases by 50%, minimum.
There is no firewall. The financial system of Europe is interrelated by way of the euro. Everybody uses the same currency in 17 countries. Everybody is dependent upon the same central bank, and that bank is not exercising leadership. The head of the bank keeps saying that the governments have to step up to the plate and take responsibility. Every time he says this, I am reminded of what Ben Bernanke keeps telling Congress.
The heads of the two largest central banks in the world keep complaining that the politicians have got to take responsibility for solving the crisis. But this is exactly what the politicians do not want to do. The politicians have always understood that the central bank would bail them out of their crisis, merely by creating new money and buying the IOUs of the government. This has always been the public justification of central banking.
The politicians seem blind to the real reason for the existence of central banking, namely, to bail out the largest commercial banks under its jurisdiction. The European Central Bank faces an enormous problem: it has under its jurisdiction the largest banks in every country in the eurozone, other than Great Britain. It has to intervene to save any large bank that is under its jurisdiction, because if it does not, there will be bank runs in that nation.
A BANK RUN
Depositors can go down to their banks and have money transferred to a bank outside the country. Usually, this is going to be a German bank. Legally, the recipient bank can refuse to take a deposit, but what bank would dare not take deposits? Any bank that would say that it was not taking deposits from any other bank would be sending a signal to the media that the other bank is bordering on insolvency. That is the last thing that any bank in northern Europe wants to do with respect to any bank in Greece, Spain, or Italy.
The European Central Bank is sitting on a powder keg. The fuse has already been lit. That fuse is connected to the Greek banking system. If the Greek banking system blows up, by which I mean implodes, that will light another fuse. The other fuse leads to Spain. I could be wrong. There may be two fuses, one leading to Spain, and the other leading to Italy.
There is no firewall. The only firewall would be for banks in northern Europe to refuse to take new accounts from people who were closing out their accounts in southern Europe. But if they do not stop the bank runs from taking place in Greece, the Greek government is going to default on its debt and pull out of the eurozone. It will have no choice. If its banks are collapsing, how will it be able to fund its debt? How will it be able to collect taxes?
You can see what is at stake here. A small-scale bank run has been going on for at least a year in Greece, and it is now threatening to escalate into a full-scale run. Northern European banks could refuse to take new deposits in euros from existing depositors in Greece. But they would all have to do this at once. If only one or two major banks in northern Europe refuse to accept new accounts from Greeks, this will send a message to all the other Greeks: "You had better get your money out of your bank, fast, and get it into a northern European bank that has not yet closed off new deposits." The bank run escalates.
Because not all of the banks are under the same banking laws, and because no regulatory agency can tell them what to do, Europe has a system in which depositors in PIIGS nations can create massive bank runs against the banks in their own nations.
There is no firewall against this. The bank runs have begun in Greece. Banks outside of the eurozone can refuse to take on new deposits, but banks inside the eurozone cannot do this without threatening the survival of the entire banking system. Furthermore, if they do not create a firewall, the collapsed banks of Greece, Spain, and Italy will lead to the bankruptcy of their respective governments, and that in turn will lead to massive losses in northern European banks.
You do not see a detailed discussion of this in the mainstream press, for very good reason: the mainstream press is afraid of being blamed for triggering a bank run out of Greek banks. Everybody in authority knows a Greek bank run has begun, but this is not front page news. It is certainly not a story on the evening television news shows. Maybe "The PBS News Hour" will bring in two or three experts to discuss it, who will offer rival views, but the network news will not talk about the Greek bank run until it is in its terminal stage.
So, the people who run the new European order sit there, helpless, completely dependent upon decisions made by depositors in Greek banks. At any time, a wave of fear could spread through Greece, and a majority of depositors will start lining up to get their money. If they take out their money in currency, this collapses the local bank, which has to sell assets to buy the currency from the European Central Bank in order to hand the currency to the depositor. That kind of bank run is bad for a single bank, but usually depositors spend the money. When a depositor spends the money, the business that receives the money re-deposits the money in its bank. So, a bank run into currency is not a huge threat to the Greek banking system as a whole.
In contrast, however, is a bank run in the form of the transfer of digital money out of the country. All of the Greek banks are facing this threat today. Once the euros leave the Greek banking system, they are not redeposited in the Greek banking system.
What we are seeing is the collapse of the Greek banking system. Unless the European Central Bank intervenes again, by the end of the year, there is not going to be a Greek banking system. All of the banks will be busted.
There is nothing that the Eurocrats can do about this. The only agency that has the power to stop this is the European Central Bank, which can do whatever it wants to do, ultimately, which means lending money to Greek banks based on any collateral they want to put up, especially IOUs issued by the Greek government.
CONCLUSION
Angela Merkel can scream, yell, and hold her breath until she turns blue, but ultimately she has no power over the European Central Bank. Ultimately, no politician has any power over it. No politician really wants power over it. Why not? Because that politician would then be responsible for coming up with the money that the European Central Bank was about to come up with, but which was stymied by the politician.
This is why the European Central Bank is going to inflate, inflate, and inflate. The head of the bank can make all the comments he wants about the responsibility of politicians to intervene to keep the structure going, but he is ultimately the bagman of the system. He is the guy who has control over the printing press. He is the only person, along with his colleagues, who is in a position to keep the system afloat.
There is no firewall. There is only the ability of the European Central Bank to create money, and to do so by lending it to commercial banks or directly to governments. It does not matter what kind of rules and regulations are in place that were supposed to prohibit this back in 1999.
In the midst of a conflagration, nobody in power is going to point a finger at the European Central Bank when the bank intervenes to bail out a government that is about to default on its debt. The reason is clear, or at least is clear to me: no politician wants to be responsible for coming up with the money to bail out the largest banks in his country, all of which will be threatened with insolvency because of the default of Greece and Spain, because that will produce a domino effect by all of the PIIGS governments.
June 23, 2012
Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.
Copyright © 2000 Gary North